Skip to main content

FM
Former Member
JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, AS PURCHASER OF THE LOANS AND OTHER ASSETS OF WASHINGTON MUTUAL BANK, FA (THE "SAVINGS BANK") FROM THE FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION, ACTING AS RECEIVER FOR THE SAVINGS BANK AND PURSUANT TO ITS AUTHORITY UNDER THE FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE ACT, 12 U.S.C. § 1812(d), 7255 Baymeadows Way, Jacksonville, Fl 32256, Plaintiff, - against - PHILIP R. BALDEO A/K/A PHILIP BALDEO, BOARD OF MANAGERS OF THE MILLENIUM TOWER RESIDENCES CONDOMINIUM ASSN, MUNTERS CORPORATION MOISTURE CONTROL SERVICES, NEW YORK CITY ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL BOARD, NEW YORK CITY TRANSIT ADJUDICATION BUREAU, PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, JOHN DOE (Said name being fictitious, it being the intention of Plaintiff to designate any and all occupants of premises being foreclosed herein and any parties, corporations or entities, if any, having or claiming an interest or lien upon the mortgaged premises), Defendants.

10 Civ. 2645(NRB)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 139102


December 29, 2010, Decided
December 30, 2010, Filed


COUNSEL:  [*1] For FDIC, Acting as Receiver for Washington Mutual Bank, Plaintiff: Dominique Murray, Widowski & Steinhart LLP, New York, NY.

For Philip R. Baldeo, also known as Philip Baldeo, Defendant: Sanford Solny, LEAD ATTORNEY, The Law Office of Sanford Solny, New York, NY.

JUDGES: NAOMI REICE BUCHWALD, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

OPINION BY: NAOMI REICE BUCHWALD

OPINION

MEMORANDUM & ORDER

NAOMI REICE BUCHWALD


UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Plaintiff, a national banking association, brought an action in New York State court to foreclose on an unpaid note and mortgage. Defendant answered and brought seven counterclaims, six of which sought damages. 1 It then initiated a third party complaint against the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation ("FDIC") and removed to federal court. 2 FDIC now moves to substitute itself in place of the counterclaim defendants for counterclaims two through seven, to dismiss those claims, and to dismiss the third party complaint in its entirety. Counterclaims two through seven are the counterclaims seeking damages, and the third party complaint simply incorporates those counterclaims against FDIC.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - Footnotes - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

1 The first counterclaim, which requests that the Court issue an injunction specifically enforcing the mortgage  [*2] and enjoining the prosecution of this action, is clearly directed to the plaintiff, JPMorgan Chase Bank.2 Defendant initially removed the case before the FDIC was formally a party. However, for purposes of this order we will assume that defendant adequately complied with all necessary procedures for instituting a third party complaint and removing to federal court.


- - - - - - - - - - - - End Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Defendant does not dispute that the FDIC is the appropriate counterclaim defendant. It also admits that it did not assert its administrative claim as required prior to the FDIC's declared deadline of December 30, 2008. In fact, it admits that is has yet to file any such claim. Thus, we dismiss defendant's claims pursuant to 12 U.S.C. § 1821(d) (13) (D), which limits judicial review of certain actions involving the FDIC to those which comply with the other requirements of 12 U.S.C. § 1821(d) that defendant has admittedly not done.

Defendant requests that we dismiss the claims without prejudice so that it may attempt to demonstrate that it meets certain statutory conditions which would exempt it from the December 30, 2008 deadline. While the FDIC believes this is will prove to be futile, it does not object to such an attempt  [*3] being made. Thus, we will dismiss these claims without prejudice.

Having submitted the FDIC as the proper party and then dismissed the counterclaims against the FDIC and the third party complaint against the FDIC, the only basis for removal asserted by defendant has been eliminated. Thus, we remand the case to state court, the forum chosen by the plaintiff and not timely objected to by defendant.

The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to remand this action forthwith.

Dated: New York, New York

December 29, 2010

/s/ Naomi Reice Buchwald

NAOMI REICE BUCHWALD

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Replies sorted oldest to newest

Add Reply

×
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×
×